The life and death of open source companies
Open source companies, especially those selling cloud or SaaS products, face a structural conflict between freely sharing code and defending a viable business against larger “free-rider” platforms. Commenters debate whether new “source-available” licenses like the Fair Source License (which delay full open‑sourcing) are a reasonable response, or a betrayal of the traditional free and open source social contract. Examples from Elastic, Sentry, and 3D printer makers like Prusa and Bambu highlight differing views on sustainability, competition, and whether open source can realistically support long‑term, for‑profit ventures without changing its licensing philosophy.
Open source companies vs. profit
- Many argue “open source company” is structurally conflicted: free code makes it trivial for others (notably cloud providers) to resell without bearing development costs.
- Others counter that there are successful bootstrapped OSS businesses (support/consulting focused) and that the problem is more VC-fueled infinite-growth expectations than licensing.
- Some say if your competitive value is mostly the code, you shouldn’t open source it; if you do, you must accept copycats as normal users, not “freeloaders.”
Licenses: FSL, BUSL, GPL, AGPL, source-available
- FSL/BUSL-style licenses: source available, commercial restrictions now, convert to OSI-style open source after a delay (e.g., 2 years).
- Supporters see them as a realistic defense against “harmful free riders” while still eventually contributing to the commons.
- Critics see them as “you can have the scraps later,” fundamentally not open source, and worry about misleading branding.
- Strong copyleft (GPL/AGPL) is presented as the way to ensure improvements stay public; others argue it still doesn’t prevent big vendors from monetizing without meaningful contribution.
- There is confusion over terms (FOSS vs OSS vs source-available), and calls for clearer labels like “delayed open source.”
Case studies: Elastic/AWS, Sentry, Prusa vs Bambu, Redis, 3D printing
- Elastic’s relicensing framed variously as protection from cloud giants or simple greed; disagreement over whether AWS was actually killing the business.
- Sentry’s move to FSL is seen by some as necessary to survive, by others as abandoning open source while still trading on its image.
- In 3D printing, Prusa’s struggles vs cheaper, faster Bambu printers are used to debate whether openness of firmware matters compared to hardware innovation and price.
- Some argue Bambu’s closed model still had a positive ecosystem effect by raising the bar; others worry about patents, ethics, and long‑term user lock‑in.
Business models and sustainability
- Proposed sustainable OSS models: donations/Patreon, non-profits, consulting/support, SaaS, paid extensions, and corporate sponsorship.
- Skeptics note consulting-heavy models have low scalability and weak defensibility; key staff can easily spin out as competitors.
- Several comments highlight that much OSS is effectively funded as commodity infrastructure by large companies who need it for their proprietary products.
User priorities vs ideology
- Many users prioritize “works well and is cheap” over licensing; long-term freedom/repairability is seen as ideological by some, essential risk management by others.
- There is broad agreement that mislabeling restricted licenses as “open source” is harmful and should be called out.